Thread: How's my new Website

Will you take it easy? It isn't as black and white as that.
Some text should really be smaller, some larger.
Text menu items and things like that are suited for smaller font.
But body text is not.
So even when I set the minimum font size to 12, sites get messed up because they can't show 11px in some places where it would fit, so it not a solution.
The solution is, like you said, to use relative size.

Originally Posted by MK27

Web programming is programming, but IMO it is a realm with "lower standards", probably because there is so much of it and it is so easy to "distribute". I use a minimum font of 22, which is probably larger than most web designers expect, so on a poorly designed page, the text will overflow. However, that is simply bad programming ;

A little off topic, but I find it quite interesting that you refer to this as web programming. This seems more like user interface design, and consequently web design, as opposed to the provision of functionality via client side and server side scripting, which I would classify as web programming. When we consider that web designers may have made a transition from design on printed material, it makes sense that they, until taught otherwise, would tend to design as if they were working with a printed document instead of a webpage.

Originally Posted by Elysia

Will you take it easy? It isn't as black and white as that.
Some text should really be smaller, some larger.
Text menu items and things like that are suited for smaller font.
But body text is not.
So even when I set the minimum font size to 12, sites get messed up because they can't show 11px in some places where it would fit, so it not a solution.
The solution is, like you said, to use relative size.

Okay, I apologize for using the word "dumb" but I can't think of anything else appropriate here

I'm a bit of a hypocrit, because when I write websites I do use the relative size "small" and "x-small" for little things like "close" at the bottom of a pop-up menu. Of course, when I look at them normally they are still 22pt, so I have to turn that off to make sure the aesthetic is okay. But when I turn it back on, nothing gets messed up because I set my divs up correctly (that is the real #1 problem on websites today). Like I said, all the text at cboard is for me 22 pts and vBulletin handles that just fine, because it was programmed well.

There are like 5 or 6 relative sizes, so I don't understand why anyone ever has to use an absolute point size*. And I do agree with everyone in the sense that I cannot see any reason to ever dictate a size for an actual paragraph of text. It should appear as the user's default size (which you do have set).

*Actually I do know why they do it: these are the same designers responsible for the proliferation of the "paper width" site like this:

Scientists warn carbon dioxide may soon make coral reefs extinct | Environment | The Guardian

which is a fixed, absolute width in the middle of your screen. This is particularly ridiculous considering most new monitors are widescreen. It is basically just laziness in design IMO.

Originally Posted by Thantos

A web designer (which is actually what we are talking about) should not expect the user to make any changes to their browser settings in order to work. That means the font size needs to be adequate for the majority of users.

I agree. A minimum font size feature is good, but that does not mean that people know about it, as this thread apparently demonstrates.

Originally Posted by Thantos

since most font sizes are giving in absolute terms (pixels, xx-small, x-large, etc) and not relative (smaller, larger, em, etc).

I am not a web designer, but I had the impression from reading certain Sitepoint books that the current best practice recommendation is indeed to use relative font sizes.

Originally Posted by MK27

which is a fixed, absolute width in the middle of your screen. This is particularly ridiculous considering most new monitors are widescreen. It is basically just laziness in design IMO.

Is it really?
As I was taught, it's easier to read shorter lines than longer. Lines should typically be around 13 words or so.
That means that the text part must be fixed width. And the rest of the content is usually images and stuff and images should never stretch, so usually it becomes fixed size too.
And centering the whole thing on the page instead of putting it all the way to the left or the right is just more visually pleasing.
After all, the web pages must target a minimum resolution, usually 1024 x 768.

Originally Posted by Thantos

Elysia: When you say a "small monitor" that typically implies a lower resolution which in turn means that the fonts are going to be appear larger since most font sizes are giving in absolute terms (pixels, xx-small, x-large, etc) and not relative (smaller, larger, em, etc).

I know what you say, but I compared a 42 inch LCD TV vs, say, a 24 inch LCD Monitor.
TV has resolution 1920 x 1080 and the monitor 1920 x 1200.
You might have a hard time reading that small text on a 24 inch monitor for which is really suited for such high resolution.

Yeah, the text is somewhat readable on a 42 inch TV. But then, how will it look on a 24 inch monitor or smaller?
I keep wondering that. Why do people use such small text?

Originally Posted by Thantos

A web designer (which is actually what we are talking about) should not expect the user to make any changes to their browser settings in order to work. That means the font size needs to be adequate for the majority of users.

Right, but *all* browsers have a default font setting, "Arial-18" or whatever. So we are not talking about changing settings. They are already set. You do not need to specify any font at all, unless there is some particular reason for doing so, which should be a real reason, methinks, not just habit.

And judging from the quality of a double digit percentage of professional web work out there, being a professional web designer amounts to exactly squat in my book, so sorry, your opinion is still just an opinion.

I have a friend who is paid full time to maintain a corporate web site, and he does a nice job, has a great eye, etc, but I can code circles around him in anything except php (which I don't know any), and I can perl circles around his php stuff. He does not try to deny this either. "Pro" is just a title dude.

About the num of words in a line thing, that is a good point, I personally just do not find this to be the case and I read a lot. That also means you would have to assume a certain font size, which is ignorant. I think sites that use the entire page width look much better IF it is done intelligently, eg without stretching images. I think it is fairly normative to use a relative size div (eg, 80% of screen width) containing divs with absolute sizes for certain things, but positioned relatively. Making them all absolute still seems lazy to me!

ps. "small" "x-small" are absolute, but they are relative in the sense that the browsers dictates the actual size relative to the default.

Originally Posted by Thantos

My opinion is based on real experience in dealing with customer feedback. What is yours based on?

I'm a consumer of websites. There is my feedback. A lot of them are horrendous. That Guardian news site, for example, almost looks like there is no organization at all; someone just created a page from a list of items. But I bet professionals are getting paid big bucks for it anyway. Maybe it is to their advantage to maintain a low standard of work to keep it easy! There's a conspiracy for you. So "customer feedback" could mean someone said "that'll do" because it looks equally pathetic. Which is understandable: the web is great and important and it would be even if it were still just plain text. But too much navel gazing would be, too much navel gazing.

Still, they could at least try. I use Verizon internet, which Verizon is like one of the largest telecommunication companies in the world. But I have to use their site to pay my bill, etc, and it is a very unpleasant experience. In contrast to other places, for example, using a min 22 font does screw it up. To me, that is just plain "unprofessional", but I am sure they have spent millions on their monstrosity.

Now your friend sounds like a designer who knows just enough code to get by (similar to how I know enough design to get by). Nothing wrong with that. I do wish that companies would recognize the need to separate out their programming for their site design and get the people who can do those individual parts the best.

You've got it. He doesn't have any formal training, either. The company is small, but a lot of their business is on-line, so I think the owner likes having one guy in the office who works for him, rather than contracting out. When he started last year, the existing site had been contracted and was an expensive mess. Apparently the boss is very appreciated of what he's done with it, which was a complete re-write (he even got to buy books and learn on the job, and this paid off for everyone. I'm very jealous, actually).

The moral being, no doubt massive corps like Verizon do contract other massive corps, but it seems that all the bureaucracy and inefficiency there simply mean large numbers of highly trained but semi-competent "professionals" are kept employed. Those are the people setting the low standard which other people may be following in error, or out of insecurity...it's the science of mediocrity in action.

Originally Posted by MK27

The moral being, no doubt massive corps like Verizon do contract other massive corps, but it seems that all the bureaucracy and inefficiency there simply mean large numbers of highly trained but semi-competent "professionals" are kept employed. Those are the people setting the low standard which other people may be following in error, or out of insecurity...it's the science of mediocrity in action.

It's a more or less accurate description, I'd say. But...

You are wrong in that these are semi-competent professionals. First do everyone in here a favor and stop using words like dumb, idiot or quoting the word professionals. Until you show some credentials, a few of us in here demand a little more respect. This, of course, if you plan for this conversation to remain civil, and for you to gain some new knowledge from people far more experienced than you. Yes, that's the operative word; Experienced.

But the idea of semi-competent professionals really is faulty at large. It is a clear indication of your lack of experience on the market of website design and programming. If there is no denying there less competent or unknowing people out there, there are however a lot more competent and knowledgeable people getting payed to develop poor websites.

Until you get into that head of yours that many professional programming task (and just not web development) is subject to limitations of time, corporate specifications, customer choices that often change mid-project, and even pay amount, you will keep barking at the wrong tree. And be laughed at.

And if that is not enough, until you realize that HTML/CSS are outdated, limited, and weak technologies with a complex set of Standards that delay development times considerably, complicate website maintenance, and do not directly answer today's web market needs, you will keep failing to understand that the real problem is not lack of competence. It is, for the most part, the lack of a better technology.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Until you show some credentials, a few of us in here demand a little more respect.

Unfortunately, I do not think this way AT ALL.

Just to clarify: I think I am being polite. Obviously, you have received way, way too much undeserved respect in your life and now you just feel entitled. I am very skeptical about the idea that people like you have anything at all to teach people like me so I will tell you right now I do not care at all what you think about that, where I rank on your "favoured" list or whatever it is you are trying to imply.

I put the word "professional"ized in quotes because I think the real term here is commercialized. I have been using the www since it started in 1993. A huge amount of it today is absolute crap and garbage done by people who clearly do not have much interest in what they are doing. I have had jobs that to me were a check, and not much more, so I won't hold the attitude against anyone; I probably wouldn't be that interested either but getting paid is getting paid. So get off your high horse: you look ridiculous on it. Extremely.

No offence, Mario F, I actually think you are an insightful guy. Just I have a nasty habit of telling the truth to people I respect

There's no reasoning with you. Bye.